alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021019EN.01000601.xml

| 18.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — UQ v Marclean Technologies SLU

(Case C-300/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Collective redundancies - Directive 98/59/EC - First subparagraph of Article 1(1)(a) - Definition of ‘collective redundancies’ - Methods of calculating the number of redundancies - Reference period take into account)

(2021/C 19/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UQ

Defendant: Marclean Technologies SLU

Other parties: Ministerio Fiscal, Fondo de Garantía Salarial

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1), first subparagraph, (a) of Directive 98/59 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted in the sense that, with a view to determining whether a contested individual dismissal forms part of an instance of collective redundancy, the reference period laid down in that provision for determining the existence of collective redundancies must be calculated taking into account any period of 30 or 90 consecutive days during which that individual dismissal occurred and during which the largest number of dismissals were effected by the employer for one or more reasons not related to the individual worker concerned, within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 2.9.2019.

---
----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/22/2011 12:16 PM

-----

|------------>

| From: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|"Joseph L. Suchecki" <jsuchecki@emamail.org>

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| To: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Date: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|02/22/2011 11:51 AM

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Subject: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|EMA Response to Question on IMO Allowance Comment

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

TO: Melanie King

US EPA

FROM: Joe Suchecki

EMA

DATE: February 22, 2011

RE: Request for Clarification on Comment Regarding IMO

Allowances

In an email dated February 16, 2011, you asked for clarification

of a comment that EMA submitted on proposed changes to the NSPS for

Compression Ignition engines. The subject comment stated that certain

stipulated allowances for temperature and humidity correction from IMO ANNEX

VI, Sections 6.3.11 and 6.4.13 should be incorporated into the NSPS. More

specifically you asked for clarification as to whether EMA was asking to be

able to use different reference temperature and humidity values when testing

engines greater than 30 L/cyl.

I have checked with EMA members that provide stationary engines of

that size to clarify the intent of the comment. After some discussion, and

now having a better understanding of both the CI NSPS and IMO regulations, we

believe that it is not necessary to incorporate those IMO allowances for

stationary engines. EMA now believes that those allowances add a complicating

set of factors that are not needed.

EMA withdraws the request in our previous comments related to

incorporating allowances from Sections 6.3.11 and 6.4.13. EMA believes that

EPA does not need to take any action on this specific comment.

Joseph L. Suchecki

Director, Public Affairs

Engine Manufacturers Association
333 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 810

Chicago, IL 60606

312-929-1978
# C_2008051EN.01004501.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/45

---

Action brought on 7 December 2007 — Ecolean Research & Development v OHIM

(Case T-452/07)

(2008/C 51/84)

Language in which the application was lodged: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Ecolean Research & Development A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by L.-E. Ström, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Referral back to the Board of Appeal for a fresh examination. |
| --- | --- |

—

Referral back to the Board of Appeal for a fresh examination.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark CAPS for goods in Classes 7, 16 and 17 — application No 4 957 131

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal infringed essential procedural requirements and Council Regulation No 40/94, in part by failing to declare that the appeal should have been translated into the applicant's first language, Swedish, and in part by upholding the appeal and continuing to correspond in English. The Board of Appeal thus failed to comply with the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of the right to equal treatment.

Pleas in law:

---
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the followingRegistration Statements of Sky Financial Group, Inc. of our report dated January 21, 2003, except for Note 26 as to which the date is July 2, 2004, on the consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders’ equity and cash flows of SkyFinancial Group, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004. 

 

Form S-3 No. 333-117186 

Form S-8 No. 333-117185 

Form S-8 No. 333-117184 

Form S-8 No. 333-108810 

Form S-8 No. 333-65492 

Form S-8 No. 333-59312 

Form S-8 No. 333-67233 

Form S-8 No. 333-47315 (Post-Effective Amendment No.1on Form S-8 to Form S-4) 

Form S-8 No. 333-60741 (Post Effective Amendment No.1 on Form S-8 to Form S-4) 

Form S-3 No. 333-64127 (Filed as Citizens Bancshares, Inc.) 

Form S-8 No.333-18867 (Filed as Citizens Bancshares, Inc.) 

 

Crowe Chizek and Company LLC 

 

Columbus, Ohio 

February 16, 2005
EXHIBIT 21.1

                                SUBSIDIARIES OF
                             GIANT INDUSTRIES, INC.
                            (a Delaware corporation)


                                       Jurisdiction
                                            of           Names Under Which
               Subsidiary              Incorporation   Company Does Business
-------------------------------------  -------------  -----------------------
Giant Industries Arizona, Inc.           Arizona      Giant Refining Company
                                                      Ciniza Pipe Line Company
                                                      Giant Transportation
                                                      Giant Service Stations
                                                      TransWest Tank Lines

- Giant Four Corners, Inc.*              Arizona
- Navajo Convenient Stores Co., LLC**    New Mexico
- Giant Mid-Continent, Inc.*             Arizona
- Phoenix Fuel Co., Inc.*                Arizona      Phoenix Fuel Company
                                                      Mesa Fuel Company
                                                      Tucson Fuel Company
                                                      Firebird Fuel Company
                                                      PFC Lubricants Company
    - Empire Oil Co.***                  California

- Ciniza Production Company*             New Mexico
- Giant Stop-N-Go of New Mexico, Inc.*   New Mexico
- San Juan Refining Company*             New Mexico
- Giant Pipeline Company*                New Mexico
- Giant Yorktown, Inc.*                  Delaware
- Giant Yorktown Holding Company*        Delaware
- Dial Oil Co.*                          New Mexico
______

  *A wholly-owned subsidiary of Giant Industries Arizona, Inc.
 **Giant Four Corners, Inc. has a 66 2/3% interest in this entity.
***A wholly-owned subsidiary of Phoenix Fuel Co., Inc.
#### In the Matter of Ira M. Scharaga et al., Appellants, v Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Hempstead, Respondent.

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Hempstead, dated June 21, 1988, which, after a hearing, denied their application for a variance, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), dated October 16, 1989, which dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that a zoning board is vested with great discretion, and its determination "will be sustained if it has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence” *(Matter of Fuhst v Foley,*45 NY2d 441, 444, 445-446; *Matter of Cowan v Kern,*41 NY2d 591, 599; *McGowan v Cohalan,*41 NY2d 434, 438; *Matter of Wilcox v Zoning Bd. of Appeals,*17 NY2d 249, 255; CPLR 7803). The zoning board’s determination that the petitioners failed to establish that strict compliance with the fence height requirements of the zoning ordinance (Town of Hempstead Building Zone Ordinance § 74) will cause "practical difficulties” was rationally based upon the record and supported by substantial evidence and therefore properly sustained *(Matter of Fuhst v Foley, supra; Matter of Cowan v Kern, supra; Matter of Faham v Bockman,*151 AD2d 665). Kunzeman, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
# C_2019288EN.01005102.xml

| 26.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/51

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — Multifit v EUIPO (Premiere)

(Case T-479/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Premiere - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 288/65)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Sesma Merino, D. Walicka and A. Söder, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action seeking annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 May 2018 (Case R 2365/2017-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Premiere as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                          929
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   9,183
<ALLOWANCES>                    54
<INVENTORY>                     21,552
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                38,554
<PP&E>                          10,814
<DEPRECIATION>                  6,429
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  46,480
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           9,196
<BONDS>                         4,342
<COMMON>                        38
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     5
<OTHER-SE>                      29,461
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    46,480
<SALES>                         47,295
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                47,295
<CGS>                           29,899
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   29,899
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              971
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 2,899
<INCOME-TAX>                    1,493
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             1,396
<DISCONTINUED>                  (619)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    777
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                   .16
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 12


                  FAIRFIELD INN BY MARRIOTT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                          (in thousands, except ratios)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                2001              2000             1999           1998           1997
<S>                                        <C>              <C>                <C>           <C>             <C>
Net loss                                   $(11,472)         $(14,774)         $(8,552)      $(12,999)       $(1,411)
Add:
  Fixed charges                               13,890            14,361           14,489         14,726         15,258
                                       --------------   ---------------    -------------    -----------    -----------
Adjusted earnings                          $   2,418         $   (413)         $  5,937      $   1,727       $ 13,847
                                       ==============   ===============    =============    ===========    ===========

Fixed charges:
   Interest on indebtedness and
     amortization of deferred
     financing costs                       $  12,845         $  13,238         $ 13,528      $  13,792       $ 14,335
   Portion of rents
     representative of interest
     factor                                    1,045             1,123              961            934            923
                                       --------------   ---------------    -------------    -----------    -----------
   Total fixed charges                     $  13,890         $  14,361         $ 14,489      $  14,726       $ 15,258
                                       ==============   ===============    =============    ===========    ===========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
                                                  --                --               --             --             --
Deficiency of earnings to fixed
   charges                                 $  11,472         $  14,774         $  8,552      $  12,999       $  1,411
</TABLE>













                                       51
#### Bevis, Appellant, *v.*Armco Steel Corp., Appellee.

(No. 32035

Decided February 15, 1950.)

*Mr. Robert E. Brooks, Mr. Louis C. Gapelle*and *Mr. Robert L. Young,*for appellant.

*Messrs. Frost S Jacobs, Mr. Harold L. Siebenthaler, Mr. Henry Wise Hobson, Jr.,*and *Mr. G. W. A. Wilmer,*for appellee.

It- is ordered, and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable, constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner and Taft, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  234,935
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,157
<INVENTORY>                                    219,433
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               490,506
<PP&E>                                       2,507,375
<DEPRECIATION>                               (528,683)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,494,387
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          188,158
<BONDS>                                        619,963
<COMMON>                                       630,484
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     775,012
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,494,387
<SALES>                                      1,403,868
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,403,868
<CGS>                                        1,010,455
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,010,455
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                93,921
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              46,761
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                252,731
<INCOME-TAX>                                    43,695
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            209,036
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   209,036
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.51
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 32.2


                                  CERTIFICATION
                    Pursuant to 18 United States Code ss.1350


     The undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Second Quarter ended June 30, 2004 of Fisher Scientific International Inc.
(the "Company") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained
in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                                /s/ Kevin P. Clark
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Kevin P. Clark
                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                                August 9, 2004
























A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Fisher Scientific International Inc. and will be retained by it and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of the
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2012

- 1167 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2012

-NE

- 36

-AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into an d then out of the changed cell

. **Estimated Costs:** Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

-hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

co st (@$8 5 /h our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet


### TAY LP C Disc life chg 12

- 01204 4 .0 $ 340.00 

### $ 0 $ 340.00 

### 4 $1,360.00 

### pro rated cost of disc 10k

- 6.5% loss of life $ 0.00 $650 $ 650.00 

### 4 $2,600.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.0 0 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $3,960 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ **On -**  **Condition Costs:** Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

-hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.0 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the E stimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### : 

### ASE Estimate **Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO
* Explanation: **D OT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:**  Is the AD significant? YES * NO
* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES * NO 

### * Explanation 

### :